Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Constitution 2.0 does away with the concepts of States and individual rights or libertiesAhem. This thread is not about what is in the existing Constitution. This thread is about what we would want in a new one. Unless an existing clause is retained and ratified in the new Constitution, all existing constitutional law becomes null and void upon adoption of a new improved version as will all federal law that is overridden by the new version.
In effect we are completely reorganizing a new and improve federal government for the United States of America....IF....we retain the federal system of government.
I would say a more rational approach would be not to go backwards. If we are going to remove anything it should be the states. Rather than semi-autonomous governments, they should be provinces and all fall under federal control.
Why?
Because we no longer live in an 18th century agrarian economy consisting of 13 colonies with vastly different structures. People living in Maine have no different needs than those living in California, which was not the case in 1776. What happens in Oregon has a direct impact on what happens in Alabama. What states do is allow pockets of rights based upon local politics. In a modern nation, my rights should not change simply because I cross a state line. If we are going to change the basic legal document, then we should become a single nation.
The fault in your logic is that the federal government should be superior to the state government ... leading to what we have now.
The federal government should have specific enumerated responsibilities, and a ban on exceeding those responsibilities. All else should be left to the state or local governments (as defined in the specific state constitution).
The rights of the people weren't being secured. Just the opposite. The local governments were either actively involved in denying those rights or just stood by as others did it for them. Do you think the preferable solution was for the people being denied their rights to arm themselves and start shooting?
The rights of the people weren't being secured. Just the opposite. The local governments were either actively involved in denying those rights or just stood by as others did it for them. Do you think the preferable solution was for the people being denied their rights to arm themselves and start shooting?
Do you think the people being denied their rights would have benefited from arming themselves and shooting people? If you think leaving it in the hands of the federal government to fix was a good idea ... Is it safe to say you are satisfied with the way it is now?
Would you be willing to arm yourself (as you can under our Constitution) and secure your rights today ... Or would you rather wait around and see what the Federal Government wants you to do?
.
I think the federal government stepping in to resolve an issue before the populace resorted to open revolt was a good thing. Do you think bloodshed would have brought about a better resolution? Bodies in the street is preferable to having to serve someone of a different shade of brown at a diner counter? Have you ever seen bodies in the street?
I am generally satisfied with the way things are, yes. Any society is made up of people and I have no illusions about the nature of humanity. Nothing is going to be perfect. However, the notion that things will be better if it is just placed in the hands of local government is absurd. Local government is also made up of people. If you are going to be oppressed, it is far more likely it will come from local government than the federal government.
Federalism can work with the bulk of power being either national or state. If the later, how much power should be given to the states?
This is exactly the problem we have with the current government - the national government has usurped the power of the states, and held it hostage by power of the purse.
The question is do we want to governed by ourselves, or by a monolithic government that answers to few?
False conclusion without context.Leave it the hell alone. It is Repub/Dem. neutral. As stupidly as we are behaving in this country, we'd probably hire a Muslim to rework it for us. We elected one President. Twice!
... “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” ~ Obama
What liberties and rights do you say the States failed to protect?
Were you alive during the 60's and before?
I was alive then. And I am alive now. Despite the issues and problems with the 40's and 50's, all of which would have been corrected sooner or later so long as the people were free to correct them, I can say without question that we had far more liberty to be who and what we are than we do now. We have far less government intrusiveness, far more potential for upward mobility, and life was pretty darn good for most.
You seem to presume that we would not have had all the problems we have had as a nation with a federal government in charge. I only point you to every other country in the world that has had a central government of whatever form and ask you to show me the ones who have not had to deal with issues of economic downturns, social strife, violation of human rights, and other problems over their histories.
How free is a man hanging from a tree?
Ok .... we just turned onto Absurd Street.
I think the federal government stepping in to resolve an issue before the populace resorted to open revolt was a good thing. Do you think bloodshed would have brought about a better resolution? Bodies in the street is preferable to having to serve someone of a different shade of brown at a diner counter? Have you ever seen bodies in the street?
I am generally satisfied with the way things are, yes. Any society is made up of people and I have no illusions about the nature of humanity. Nothing is going to be perfect. However, the notion that things will be better if it is just placed in the hands of local government is absurd. Local government is also made up of people. If you are going to be oppressed, it is far more likely it will come from local government than the federal government.
Uh ... No, I don't think the people being denied their rights would have benefited in the least from arming themselves and shooting their way through it ... In fact it wouldn't have benefitted them at all in my opinion. I also think that it was stupid to suggest it would have been an acceptable course of action worth considering in your original comment.
I can say that have no problem with any color person sitting next to me at a lunch counter ... And the Federal government doesn't dictate how I feel about others. Also ... I have seen, smelled and touched dead bodies in the street ... Put a few there myself. I just don't approve of people using outlandish scenarios to try and prove irrelevant points.
I don't know where you live ... But I still encounter more local people than Federal agents. That doesn't mean that federal concerns don't supersede local concerns. The federal government is not accountable to people in the same way at the local level ... And it was never intended to be that way in the Constitution. Local people absent federal problems shouldn't have to meet arbitrary federal requirements that don't appropriately address local matters.
Using the Justice Department to control local school policy is an example I can explain further if you need me to.
.
If you were told by the government you couldn't drink from a public fountain, use a public park or sit in a restaurant because of the way you looked, would you think your rights were being secured?
If you were told by the government you couldn't drink from a public fountain, use a public park or sit in a restaurant because of the way you looked, would you think your rights were being secured?
I would drink from the water fountain ... And sit where I wanted to sit. I have no expectations it would have turned out well ... But I wouldn't use it as an excuse to dictate where people have to go to school, eat or drink ... Or put any of that in the hands of the federal government.
.
Sure you would. And end up in a jail cell and probably beaten to a pulp by the local police, who would never be prosecuted for it. But I asked you if you would think your rights were being secured. Would you?
The federal government had every right to impose its will on the states abusing the civil liberties of its citizens.
Sure you would. And end up in a jail cell and probably beaten to a pulp by the local police, who would never be prosecuted for it. But I asked you if you would think your rights were being secured. Would you?
You asked me the question ... I answered it ... And included the fact I certainly didn't expect it would have turned out well.
I also commented I would not use it as an excuse to let the Federal Government start dictating what people have to do in regards to issues they have no business messing in.
If you need examples of those issues ... I can supply them. If you want to suggest that the Federal Government should have the right to dictate local policy that infringes or distorts personal choice in regards malicious enforcement ... You are welcome to explain why you feel that is necessary.
Edit:
I have tried not to bring in additional issues and risk completely derailing the thread. It would be equally remiss to push the conversation towards how the Justice Department chooses the assert power in matters it has no business deciding and justifying their assertions on actions that occurred over half a century ago.
.
The federal government had every right to impose its will on the states abusing the civil liberties of its citizens.
It doesn't have the right to impose its will and abuse the civil liberties of its citizens now by maliciously enforcing powers it was never given based on conditions corrected more than half a century ago..
The dog don't hunt, BS. The federal government has morally and legally compelling reasons to end states' abusing the civil liberties of its citizens.
The dog don't hunt, BS. The federal government has morally and legally compelling reasons to end states' abusing the civil liberties of its citizens.
What dog doesn't hunt ... They have the same moral responsibilities to protect the rights and liberties of all their citizens ... That includes everyone. They don't have the right to abuse the rights or liberties of citizens without any compelling reason to do so ... Nor outside of the powers they have been entrusted with..
You answered but you didn't answer the question. I understand why you would not wish to but the answer is obvious. Of course you would think your rights were not being secured.
So we have the evidence of state and local government engaged both tacitly and actively in the denial of rights to its citizens. Not ancient history, this happened within the memory of people alive today and not that old. It is clear that local government cannot be trusted to secure the rights of its citizens because they did not. This isn't theory, it is recorded fact.
So exactly what is the rationale that the federal government is worse than local government?
Any comparison of segregation with ACA or whatever is ludicrous.
The difference is of kind not degree. One is morally criminal, the second is not.
You simply don't like it.
Tough to be you then.
You answered but you didn't answer the question. I understand why you would not wish to but the answer is obvious. Of course you would think your rights were not being secured.
So we have the evidence of state and local government engaged both tacitly and actively in the denial of rights to its citizens. Not ancient history, this happened within the memory of people alive today and not that old. It is clear that local government cannot be trusted to secure the rights of its citizens because they did not. This isn't theory, it is recorded fact.
So exactly what is the rationale that the federal government is worse than local government?
I never suggested that their rights were (nor my rights would have been in your scenario) secured ... Sorry if you thought that was not answer enough.
You can argue about events that happened over half a century ago until you turn blue in the face ... And it will NEVER change the fact the federal government has no right to maliciously enforce unfounded policies beyond their designated powers with no regards to rights and liberties of their citizens today ... And then justify it in past events.
You can deny that all you want but I would to see try and support it..
